There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
1 TIMOTHY 4:16
As students of God’s Word, we should bear in mind that the burden of the Old Testament was the disparity between the external and the internal life of Israel and that much of the preaching of Christ was directed against the Jews for their failure to be inwardly what their outward profession proclaimed them to be.
Paul, too, warned of those who had but a form of godliness without the corresponding substance, and the history of the church provides all the proof we need that the temptation to make a “front” of religion is very real and very strong.
Probably the tendency to make a mere front of religion is strongest among persons engaged in professional Christian service, but the condition must not be accepted as inevitable. Our first responsibility is not to the public but to God and to our own souls!
Briefly, the way to escape religion as a front is to make it a fount! See to it that we pray more than we preach. Stay with God in the secret place longer than we are with men in the public place. Keep our hearts open to the inflowing Spirit. Cultivate the acquaintance of God more than the friendship of men and we will always have abundance of bread to give to the hungry!1
Her hap was. Yes, it seemed nothing but an accident, but how divinely was it overruled! Ruth had gone forth with her mother’s blessing, under the care of her mother’s God, to humble but honourable toil, and the providence of God was guiding her every step. Little did she know that amid the sheaves she would find a husband, that he should make her the joint owner of all those broad acres, and that she a poor foreigner should become one of the progenitors of the great Messiah. God is very good to those who trust in him, and often surprises them with unlooked for blessings. Little do we know what may happen to us to-morrow, but this sweet fact may cheer us, that no good thing shall be withheld. Chance is banished from the faith of Christians, for they see the hand of God in everything. The trivial events of to-day or to-morrow may involve consequences of the highest importance. O Lord, deal as graciously with thy servants as thou didst with Ruth.
How blessed would it be, if, in wandering in the field of meditation to-night, our hap should be to light upon the place where our next Kinsman will reveal himself to us! O Spirit of God, guide us to him. We would sooner glean in his field than bear away the whole harvest from any other. O for the footsteps of his flock, which may conduct us to the green pastures where he dwells! This is a weary world when Jesus is away—we could better do without sun and moon that without him—but how divinely fair all things become in the glory of his presence! Our souls know the virtue which dwells in Jesus, and can never be content without him. We will wait in prayer this night until our hap shall be to light on a part of the field belonging to Jesus wherein he will manifest himself to us.1
PETER having begun to preach, soon came to the marrow of his subject, and testified concerning Jesus.
Acts 2:22–42; 47
22–24 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. (This was plain speech. Peter had no fear of man, he pressed the truth home upon the conscience. Pray for all ministers that they may be equally courageous.) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25–28 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope; Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29–32 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (David’s prophecy and the witness of the apostles agreed together; here was convincing evidence for all devout inquirers. Nor was this all, for the miraculous gifts now manifestly bestowed were further proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus. Peter proceeded to dwell upon that argument.)
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34, 35 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
David could not have referred to himself, but to one who was his Lord, even to Jesus, now risen and ascended.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (The concluding words, “Him have ye crucified,” were the sharp hook by which, as a good fisher of men, Peter caught their hearts. The first word of the awakened showed a right feeling; Peter’s love in calling them “men and brethren” had created love in them, and they, in return, address the despised disciples by the same name. If there are any unconverted ones in this family, may they even now inquire, “What shall we do to be saved?”)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (His gospel was very simple; believing repentance, and baptismal profession were required, and nothing more. This same gospel belonged to their children as well as to themselves.)
41, 42 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Let us pray that such a state of things may again be seen among the people of God, and let us try to produce it.)
Thou art gone up on high,
To mansions in the skies;
And round thy throne unceasingly
The songs of praise arise.
Thou art gone up on high;
But thou wilt come again,
With all the bright ones of the sky
Attendant in thy train.
Forthwith a tongue of fire
Is seen on every brow;
Each heart receives the Father’s light,
The Word’s enkindling glow.
The Holy Ghost on all
Is mightily outpoured,
Who straight in divers tongues declare
The wonders of the Lord.
The Father and the Son,
And Spirit we adore;
Oh, may the Spirit’s gifts be poured
On us for evermore.
What a beautiful sight, when the children of light
In their primitive purity shone!
The disciples of old never strayed from the fold,
But they all were united in one.
The affections of grace were with prayer and with praise
Carried on with their every employ;
Their meals were all blest, and their hearts they expressed
In songs of angelical joy.
Their impotent foes could no longer oppose,
Or withhold their extorted esteem;
But were forced to give place to a torrent of grace,
And were all carried down with the stream.
Our hearts adore the matchless name,
Omnipotent to bless,
The name of Jesus, still the same
Despite our feebleness.
Once in the temple gate we lay
Crippled, till he restored;
But lo, we stand and walk to-day,
Yea, leap to praise the Lord.
All hail, thou dear restoring name,
We will our tongues employ,
To bid the souls which still are lame,
Believe and leap for joy.
Though sinners boldly join against the Lord to rise,
Against his Christ combine, th’ Anointed to despise;
Though earth disdain, and hell engage,
Vain is their rage, their counsel vain.
Jesus the Saviour reigns! on Sion is his throne;
The Lord’s decree sustains his own begotten Son:
Up from the grave he bids him rise,
And mount the skies, with power to save.
Oh, serve the Lord with fear, and rev’rence his command;
With sacred joy draw near, with solemn trembling stand;
Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (3:8–10)
The marks of a truly repentant heart are fruit in keeping with repentance, or as Paul described them to King Agrippa, “deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:20). In his parallel account Luke mentions several examples of the kind of fruit John was talking about. To the general multitude he said, “Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none; and let him who has food do likewise” (Luke 3:11). To the tax-gatherers he said, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to” (v. 13), and to some soldiers he said, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages” (v. 14).
As James points out, “Faith, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:17). John says in his first epistle, “The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous” (1 John 3:7); and that “if someone says, I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (4:20). Our actions toward our fellow men are indicators of our true attitude toward God.
Axios (in keeping with) has the root idea of having equal weight or worth, and therefore of being appropriate. True repentance not only should but will have correspondingly genuine works, demonstrated in both attitudes and actions. Right relationship to God brings right relationship to our fellow human beings, at least as far as our part is concerned (cf. Rom. 12:18). Those who claim to know Christ, who claim to be born again, will demonstrate a new way of living that corresponds to the new birth.
The Pharisees and Sadducees knew a great deal about repentance. That God fully and freely remits the sins of a penitent is a basic doctrine of Judaism. The ancient rabbis said, “Great is repentance, for it brings healing upon the world. Great is repentance, for it reaches to the throne of God,” and, “A man can shoot an arrow for a few furlongs, but repentance reaches to the throne of God.” Some rabbis maintained that the law was created two thousand years before the world, but that repentance was created even before the law. The clear meaning of repentance in Judaism has always been a change in man’s attitude toward God that results in a moral and religious reformation of the individual’s conduct. The great medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides said of the traditional Jewish concept of repentance: “What is repentance? Repentance is that the sinner forsakes his sin, puts it out of his thoughts, and fully resolves in his mind that he will never do it again.”
Such understanding of repentance is basically consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament. Repentance always involves a changed life, a renouncing of sin and doing righteousness. The Lord declared through Ezekiel, “When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them” (Ezek. 33:18–19). Hosea pleaded, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him, ‘Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously’ ” (Hos. 14:1–2). After Jonah’s reluctant but powerful warning to Nineveh, “God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, [and] then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10). Nineveh brought forth fruit in keeping with repentance.
The idea that repentance is evidenced by renunciation of sin and by righteous living did not originate with John the Baptist, but had long been an integral part of orthodox Judaism. Faithful rabbis had taught that one of the most important passages in Scripture was, “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (Isa. 1:16–17).
Theologian Erich Sauer, in The Triumph of the Crucified (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951, p. 67), speaks of repentance as “a threefold action. In the understanding it means knowledge of sin; in the feelings it means pain and grief; and in the will it means a change of mind.” True repentance first of all involves understanding and insight, intellectual awareness of the need for moral and spiritual cleansing and change. Second, it involves our emotions. We come to feel the need that our mind knows. Third, it involves appropriate actions that result from what our mind knows and our heart feels.
Recognition of personal sin is the important first step. But by itself it is useless, even dangerous, because it tends to make a person think that mere recognition is all that is necessary. A hardened pharaoh admitted his sin (Ex. 9:27), a double-minded Balaam admitted his (Num. 22:34), a greedy Achan acknowledged his (Josh. 7:20), and an insincere Saul confessed his (1 Sam. 15:24). The rich young ruler who asked Jesus how to have eternal life went away sorrowful but not repentant (Luke 18:23). Even Judas, despairing over his betrayal of Jesus, said to the chief priests and elders, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4). All of those men recognized their sin, yet none of them repented. They were experiencing what Paul called “the sorrow of the world” that “produces death” instead of the “godly sorrow” that “produces a repentance” (2 Cor. 7:10–11).
True repentance will include a deep feeling of wrongdoing and of sin against God. David begins his great penitential psalm by crying out, “Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; according to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions” (Ps. 51:1). He not only clearly saw his sin but deeply felt his need to be rid of it. In another psalm he declared, “When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long” (Ps. 32:3).
The sorrow of true repentance is like David’s; it is sorrow for offense against a holy God, not simply regret over the personal consequences of our sin. Sorrow over being found out or over suffering hardship or discipline because of our sin is not godly sorrow, and has nothing to do with repentance. That sort of sorrow is but selfish regret, concern for self rather than for God. It merely adds to the original sin.
Even acknowledgement of sin and feeling of offense against God do not complete repentance. If it is genuine, it will result in a changed life that bears fruitin keeping with repentance. David, after confessing and expressing great remorse for his sin against God, determined that, with God’s help, he would forsake his sin and turn to righteousness. “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me, … Then I will teach transgressors Thy ways, and sinners will be converted to Thee” (Ps. 51:10, 13). Fruit is always seen in Scripture as manifested behavior (cf. Matt. 7:20).
The great Puritan Thomas Goodwin called for repentance with these striking words:
Fall down upon thy knees afore him, and with a heart broken to water, acknowledge, as Shimei, thy treason and rebellions against him who never did thee hurt; and acknowledge, with a rope ready fitted to thy neck by thy own hands, as they Benhadad’s servants wore; that is, confessing that if he will hang thee up, he may.… Tell Him that He may shew his justice on thee, if he will; and present thy naked breast, thy hateful soul, as a butt and mark for him, if He please, to shoot his arrows into and sheathe his sword in. Only desire him to remember that he sheathed his sword first in the bowels of his Son, Zech. 13:7, when he made his soul an offering for sin. (The Works of Thomas Goodwin [Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863], 7:231)
Another Puritan, William Perkins, wrote, “Godly sorrow causeth grief for sin, because it is sin. It makes any man in whom it is to be of this disposition and mind, that if there were no conscience to accuse, no devil to terrify, no Judge to arraign and condemn, no hell to torment, yet he would be humbled and brought on his knees for his sins, because he hath offended a loving, merciful, and longsuffering God.”
Ultimately, of course, repentance like that is a gift of God. Speaking to the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish council, Peter and some of the other apostles said, “He [Jesus] is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). Some while later, after he himself had finally been persuaded by God that the Gentiles were eligible for the kingdom (10:1–35), Peter managed to convince skeptical Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who then “glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’ ” (11:18). Paul called Timothy to be a gentle bond-servant of the Lord in proclaiming the truth to the lost in the hope that “God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:25–26).
It was clearly not God-given repentance that the Pharisees and Sadducees professed before John. Of all people they should have known the meaning of true repentance, but they did not. They were hypocrites and phonies, as John well knew. He had seen absolutely no evidence of true repentance, and he demanded to see such evidence before he would baptize them. As in the case of all baptisms since John, they are to be outward signs of inward transformation.
John’s words to those religious leaders was at once a rebuke and an invitation: Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance. “You have shown no evidence of it,” he was saying, “but now you have opportunity to truly repent if you mean it. Show me that you have turned from your wicked hypocrisy to genuine godliness, and I will be glad to baptize you.” The rabbis taught that the gates of repentance never close, that repentance is like the sea, because a person can bathe in it at any hour. Rabbi Eleezar said, “It is the way of the world, when a man has insulted his fellow in public, and after a time seeks to be reconciled to him, that the other says, ‘You insult me publicly, and now you would be reconciled to me between us two alone! Go bring the men in whose presence you insulted me, and I will be reconciled to you.’ But God is not so. A man may stand and rail and blaspheme in the market place and the Holy One says, ‘Repent between us two alone, and I will receive you.’ ” (cited in William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 1:56).
Some years ago a well-known man in public ministry openly and repeatedly ridiculed a fellow minister. After many months of criticism, the first man decided that he was wrong in what he had done and went to the other minister asking his forgiveness. It was reported that the one who had been criticized replied, “You attacked me publicly and you should apologize publicly. When you do I will forgive you.”
There is no reason to believe that John the Baptist intended to humiliate the Pharisees and Sadducees or demand some sort of public demonstration of their sincerity. But he insisted on seeing valid evidence of true repentance and would not be party to their using him to promote their own selfish and ungodly purposes.
Knowing what they were probably thinking, John continued, and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father.” They believed that simply being Abraham’s descendants, members of God’s chosen race, made them spiritually secure. Not so, John said, for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Descent from Abraham was not a passport to heaven. It was a great advantage in knowing and understanding God’s will (Rom. 3:1–2; 9:4–5), but without faith in Him that advantage becomes a more severe condemnation. If Abraham himself was justified only by his personal faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:1–3), how could his descendants expect to be justified in any other way (Rom. 3:21–22)?
Many Jews of New Testament times believed, and many Orthodox Jews of our own day still believe, that simply their Jewishness assures them a place in God’s kingdom. The rabbis taught that “all Israelites have a portion in the world to come.” They spoke of the “delivering merits of the fathers,” who passed on spiritual merit to their descendants. Some even taught that Abraham stood guard at the gates of Gehenna, or hell, turning back any Israelite who happened that way. They claimed that it was Abraham’s merit that enabled Jewish ships to sail safely on the seas, that sent rain on their crops, that enabled Moses to receive the law and to enter heaven, and that caused David’s prayers to be heard.
That was the sort of presumption John the Baptist rebuked. No descent from Abraham, no matter how genetically pure, could make a person right with God. Jesus contradicted the similar claims of another group of Pharisees, except in even stronger terms than John’s. After they self-righteously asserted, “Abraham is our father,” Jesus said, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do” (John 8:39–40). Our Lord went on to say that their deeds proved their father was actually Satan. In Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus, it is overlooked that the rich man in hell addresses Abraham as “Father,” and Abraham, speaking from heaven, calls the rich man his “Child.” But the rich man was then told by Abraham, “Between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us” (Luke 16:25–26). A child of Abraham in hell was beyond their thinking.
The Jews generally considered Gentiles to be the occupants of hell, spiritually lifeless and hopeless, dead stones as far as a right relationship with God is concerned. It may be that John played on that figure in declaring that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham, that is, true children of Abraham who come to the Lord as Abraham did, by faith. When the Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant simply by saying the word, Jesus replied, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom [i.e., Israelites] shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:10–12).
In John’s preaching, as in the Old Testament prophets, judgment was closely connected with salvation in the coming of the Messiah. Those men of God saw no gap between His coming to save and His coming to judge. Isaiah wrote of the “shoot” that would “spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots” who would “decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked” (Isa. 11:1, 4). Speaking again of the Messiah, Isaiah wrote, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; … to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:1–2; cf. Joel 3). In his blessing of the infant Jesus in the Temple, Simeon said of Him, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34).
Israel experienced a foretaste of God’s judgment in the ravaging of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70, only about forty years after John the Baptist preached. Every unbeliever likewise faces a certain judgment when he dies, and even before death people may suffer foretaste judgments from God because of sin and rebellion. As the book of Proverbs repeatedly reminds us (1:32–33; 2:3–22; 3:33–35; etc.), God makes certain that ultimately, and even to a great extent in this life, the good will reap goodness and the evil will reap evil (cf. Rom. 2:5–11).
John apparently believed that God’s ultimate judgment was imminent. Because the Messiah had arrived, the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
At the end of every harvest season the farmer would go through his vineyard or orchard looking for plants that had borne no good fruit. These would be cut down to make room for productive vines and trees and to keep them from taking nutrients from the soil that were needed by the good plants. A fruitless tree was a worthless and useless tree, fit only to be cut down and thrown into the fire. Jesus used a similar figure in describing false disciples. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6). Fruitless repentance is worthless and useless; it means absolutely nothing to God.
Fire is a frequent biblical symbol of the torment of divine punishment and judgment. Because of their exceptional wickedness, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen. 19:24). After Korah, his men, and their households were swallowed up by the earth and “went down alive to Sheol … fire also came forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense” (Num. 16:32–33, 35). In His role as a righteous Judge, God is frequently called “a consuming fire” (Ex. 24:17; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; etc.). In the last chapter in the Old Testament, Malachi speaks of the coming day that will be “burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze” (Mal. 4:1). John’s preaching picked up where Malachi left off, and Jesus Himself often spoke of the fires of hell (Matt. 5:22, 29; Mark 9:43, 47; Luke 3:17; etc.).
John was speaking specifically to the unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees, but his message of judgment was to every person, every tree … that does not bear good fruit, who refuses to turn to God for forgiveness and salvation and therefore has no evidence, no good fruit, of genuine repentance. Salvation is not verified by a past act, but by present fruitfulness.1
1 MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1985). Matthew (Vol. 1, pp. 64–70). Moody Press.
Jeremiah 51:5 — Why is God judging Babylon? Because God isn’t done with Israel!
Jeremiah 51:8 — The declaration that Babylon is fallen is repeated in Revelation 18:2.
Jeremiah 51:15 — Note the greatness of God’s power, wisdom, and understanding!
Jeremiah 51:28 — God is using the Medes to defeat the Babylonians, as He used the Babylonians to defeat the Judeans. Interestingly, Jeremiah is prophesying about who will destroy Babylon roughly seventy years before it happens!
Jeremiah 51:45 — God told His people to surrender to Babylon (Jeremiah 27:11), and now He is telling His people to flee Babylon. This is not an example of God changing His mind but of having different purposes at different times for His people! God is not done with Jerusalem (Jeremiah 51:50).
Titus 2:1 — Did you notice Paul’s theme of the importance of doctrine?
Titus 2:2 — Paul has behavioral expectations for elders (Titus 1:5-6) and bishops (Titus 1:7-9). Now he covers seniors (Titus 2:2-3), younger people (Titus 2:4-8), and servants (Titus 2:9).
Titus 2:10 — Does your behavior adorn the doctrine of God?
Titus 2:12 — How can we live up to the behavioral expectations? We have power from the grace of God that lets us deny ungodliness and allows us to live soberly.
Titus 2:13 — Are you looking for the Blessed Hope and the Second Coming of Jesus? In the mean time, are you walking in freedom from iniquity, and are you zealous for good works (Titus 2:14)? Remember “peculiar” doesn’t mean weird!
Titus 2:15 — Speak, exhort, and rebuke are not synonyms.
Speak – proclamation of the boundary line
Exhort – encouraging people to defend the boundary line
Rebuke – confronting people who have not defended the boundary line
Psalm 99:5 — He is holy. Holiness implies separation. Separated from us because of our iniquities, yet He is a God Who forgives (Psalm 99:8).
Proverbs 26:17 — Mind your own business!
Share how reading through the Bible has been a blessing to you! E-mail us at 2018bible@vcyamerica.org or call and leave a message at 414-885-5370.
Segment 1 (00:00) Todd makes the point that grandchildren are the evidence of a faithful preacher. MacArthur expounds on this. The world says “be popular” and the Bible says “be humble”.
Segment 2 (09:20) Faithful is a word not used in culture. Humility is also a word and concept not in culture. MacArthur shows how Paul was humble. This is contrary to the social media culture of the world today.
Segment 3 (18:40) Todd makes the point being a pastor is a full time job. Faithful preachers like MacArthur should be listened too. A pastor should not be the center of attention and make it a show about themself. Our confirmation from God makes the world’s confirmation meaningless.
Wretched Surprise! (26:00) MacArthur says we do not seek to have reputation with the world, and the role of a pastor is not to be popular.
“1689” is, for some, the name of an old friend, a faithful confession of biblical truths. For others, it evokes a reputation of online tribalism. Though your experience and pre-understanding may vary, the original goal of the 1689 confession was to fulfill and embody the unity Jesus asked the Father to give his church in his high priestly prayer.
As he drew near to the hour of his suffering and triumph, Jesus prayed that his church “may be sanctified in truth . . . that they may all be one” (John 17:17–21). A good confession of faith unites Christians in truth, and the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2LCF) is one such confession.
The original goal of the 1689 confession was to fulfill and embody the unity Jesus asked the Father to give his church.
The 2LCF, successor to the First London Baptist Confession (1644), was first published in 1677. But it’s commonly known by the year 1689, when more than a hundred Particular Baptist congregations (known as Reformed Baptists today) sent delegates called messengers to a general assemblyin London and made their subscription to the confession public: “Which Confession we own, as containing the Doctrine of our Faith and Practice.”
The Particular Baptists published the confession to distance themselves from the errors and heresies of Thomas Collier, a Baptist minister and author whom they’d confronted in person, then in print, in the two years prior to the Confession’s publication. Though 2LCF was born into this controversy, it was crafted in the spirit of Christ’s prayer for unity. We can see this in three ways.
1. Confessing the London Confession means uniting with the larger Christian church.
In the preface to the 2LCF, the Particular Baptists stated that much of the content of their confession was taken directly from the Savoy Declaration (1658) and the Westminster Confession (1646):
We did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs. And this we did, the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion.
With the 2LCF, the Particular Baptists intentionally sought to unite with other English Christians in the fundamentals of the faith. Moreover, they had, as they said a few lines later, “no itch to clog religion with new words.” As a result, the majority of the 2LCF simply restates wisdom and insight from other English confessions, just as the crafters of the Savoy Declaration and Westminster Confession of Faith had reused the wisdom of the Irish Articles and the Thirty-nine Articles, which in turn had relied on even older Christian creeds.
2. Confessing the London Confession means uniting with the Reformed Baptist tradition.
Confessions aren’t inerrant. We should think of them as revisable, submitting their contents to God’s Word, our supreme judge and final authority in all matters of faith. But generations of Particular Baptists have confessed the 2LCF because they believe it faithfully represents the doctrine expressly set down and necessarily contained in God’s Word.
With the 2LCF, the Particular Baptists intentionally sought to unite with other English Christians in the fundamentals of the faith.
From its first publication in 1677 until today, the contents of the 2LCF have remained largely unedited. Three adapted versions of the 2LCF are most notable. The Philadelphia Confession preserved the entirety of the 2LCF unchanged but added a chapter on singing in public worship and a chapter on the laying on of hands. The Charleston Confession included Philadelphia’s chapter on singing in public worship, and Charles Spurgeon’s reprint made two edits, changing “elect infants dying in infancy” to “infants dying in infancy” in section 10.3 and “moral use” to “modern use” in 19.4.
These changes have been minimal because Reformed Baptist churches have remained convinced of the confession’s scriptural fidelity. It’s a joy to read the 2LCF and know that we confess our faith with the same words our Baptist forefathers did in 1677.
3. Confessing the London Confession means uniting with associated confessional churches.
In chapter 26, the 2LCF confesses that churches ought to “hold communion” with one another. That is, they ought to have a formal relationship of mutual help, accountability, and cooperation with other churches of like faith. Particular Baptists have practiced associationalism for generations, and they’ve used the 2LCF as the foundation for their unity. In 1704 the Cripplegate Particular Baptist Church in London said,
The solemn owning and ratifying of our so well attested and general approved confession of faith . . . seems to us . . . a thing absolutely necessary to the just and regular constitution of all associations. (ALRPCO, Cripplegate Church Book, 26v)
In the early 1730s, the associated Particular Baptist churches in the west of England established “that Scriptural and most excellent Confession of our Pious Ancestors in [the] year 1689, as the foundation of our future meetings” (ALRPCO, Western Association Minutes [1732–44], 25). To confess the 2LCF, therefore, is not to distance oneself from the larger Christian tradition, nor to isolate oneself from other local churches, but rather it’s to embrace a document designed to unite local churches in associational communion.
In obedience to Jesus’s will expressed in his prayer for unity, all Christians must seek oneness with other believers. The Second London Baptist Confession is an excellent and proven tool for accomplishing this. It unites its confessors to the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, to an unedited Particular Baptist tradition, and to a cooperative association of confessional churches. As John taught, when the church joins together in a common confession of the truth, Christian communion is brought to a complete joy (1 John 1:1–4).
Some picture Martin Luther as a raging protester, eager to charge the gates of Rome and bring down the church. That caricature is far from the truth.
Luther was no sectarian or schismatic. He wasn’t trying to start a new church, nor was he attempting to divide the church, let alone bring Rome crashing down.
His intent was to reform from within, convinced Rome had turned to more modern innovations that betrayed the rich heritage of the church catholic (universal). We see that intent when Luther said at the start of his Ninety-five Theses that he was presenting them for public discussion but out “of love and zeal for truth and the desire to bring it to light.” Luther’s theses exhibited zeal, even serious consternation, but behind his bold discontent was a deeper motive—love. Love for God and love for his church.
Indulgences—or to be more accurate, their abuse—galvanized Luther to write these Ninety-five Theses.
The writing and posting of theses was anything but novel. It wasn’t the first time Luther had written some up for debate. Nor was Luther alone in this practice.
Many of his medieval colleagues had done the same. It’s likely Luther was imitating the examples of many who came before him. That isn’t to downplay Luther’s irritation, but he only intended to invite an academic dispute, not a revolt among the masses.
Luther only intended to invite an academic dispute, not a revolt among the masses.
Luther sent the theses to the archbishop, Albert of Brandenburg, who presided over Johann Tetzel’s indulgence preaching. He also sent them to many of his friends. That move is revealing. Some wonder whether Luther’s ultimate aim all along wasn’t academic disputation but public, pastoral clarification on an issue as significant as salvation itself. His theses, with their pastoral angle, may indicate as much.
Repentance and the Penalty for Sin
Luther’s first thesis challenged Rome’s interpretation of Matthew 4:17. “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’, he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” Many assumed Jesus was commanding the sinner to “do penance” (the Latin is poenitentiam agite).
Luther was unwilling to read into Rome’s entire penance system, indulgences included, a simple command to turn from sin. He preferred the alternative translation, “repent.”
He wrote, “This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.” Rather, it means “solely inner repentance.” Perhaps speaking from experience, Luther warned against “repentance” without external fruit: “Such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward modifications of the flesh.”
When Luther addressed sin, he still assumed Rome’s distinction between the guilt of sin and the penalty of sin, believing the latter remains “until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.” However, Luther discouraged appealing to the pope, as if the pope could somehow rid Christians of all the penalty of sin.
Furthermore, the sinner shouldn’t think he can find remission of his guilt if he isn’t truly repentant. Luther argued, “God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to his vicar, the priest.”
In 1517, Luther had yet to jettison Rome’s view of the priesthood. But he was irritated with priests, especially those who abused the concept of purgatory, noting, “Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.”
It used to be the case, said Luther, that “penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.” Not anymore. That worried Luther to no end; perhaps he talked to churchgoers who assumed that once they were absolved the penalties were nothing.
Purgatory and Indulgences
Luther was convinced purgatory was approached with all the wrong motives. The preachers of purgatory—like Tetzel—used fear rather than love to convey purgatory’s purpose. Luther wrote, “It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.”
He was persuaded that people everywhere were misinformed, even misled. When the pope granted a “plenary remission of all penalties,” he “[did] not actually mean ‘all penalties,’ but only those imposed by himself.”
Luther lamented, “Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.”
He claimed those purgatory preachers, like Tetzel, were proclaiming lies when they promised immediate release from purgatory at the purchase of an indulgence slip. He wrote, “They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.”
As the money chest increased, “greed and avarice” increased all the more. Luther reminded Christians that if they couldn’t even be sure their own repentance was genuine, how then could they be certain the penalty for all their sins was remitted by indulgences?
Often fiery, it seems Luther might well have flipped the indulgence tables upside down himself: “Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.”
Fiery Language, Pastoral Heart
Luther’s strong language—damnation!—conveyed his pastoral disgust. Sinners rushed to the indulgence tables under the impression that if they had enough money to purchase the slip, they’d escape purgatory, regardless of whether they were repentant.
Some said an indulgence could “absolve a man even if he had . . . violated the mother of God” herself.
“Madness!” Luther cried. “What a total abuse of the penance system, as if satisfaction for the temporal punishment for one’s sins was for sale irrespective of genuine confession, irrespective of what sins one had committed.”
Luther objected with such vehemence because he was convinced cheap grace was offered at the expense of the heart’s sanctification.
Then Luther put forward a thesis that must have infuriated preachers like Tetzel: “Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.”
Preachers of “papal indulgences” who refused to exercise “caution” gave the laity the impression that other “good works of love” were less important. They were not, Luther replied. And like that, Luther undermined the entire system of indulgences, throwing into question the motivation of those selling them as well as their salvific value.
Catholic, Not Roman
Did Luther have an accurate understanding of the pope and his involvement in the indulgence affair?
Luther initially gave the pope the benefit of the doubt. He assumed the pope would put a stop to the selling and buying of indulgences if he only knew how they were abused. If “the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.”
Little did Luther realize how wrong he was.
At this point in Luther’s journey, he didn’t reject the authority of the pope altogether but merely clarified papal authority, which he feared had been misappropriated by others. Luther brought down the pope’s authority to the level of the common bishop: “That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese or parish.”
In Luther’s mind, he was merely a medieval man trying to renew the church by retrieving its true heritage. In time, he came to see that in order to be truly catholic he could no longer be Roman.
Luther even raised questions about the keys: “The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.”
The Ninety-five Theses reveal Luther was still a novice in his quest for reform. Beliefs he later abandoned were still present.
Nevertheless, the heart of his concerns was present and proved explosive in the right hands. In his mind, however, he was merely a medieval man trying to renew the church by retrieving its true heritage. In time, he came to see that in order to be truly catholic he could no longer be Roman.
President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, will deliver remarks at a rally in Traverse City, Michigan, on Friday, October 25, 2024, at 7:30 p.m. EDT. Watch LIVE on RSBN starting at 3:00 p.m. ET.
Israel is pressing ahead in its war against Hezbollah as the Iranian proxy continues to launch scores of projectiles at Northern Israel daily. Even though Israel faces war on 7 fronts , Christians are coming to Jerusalem in a show of unity during the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles. The 2024 Presidential campaign has been one of the most divisive in recent history. A new survey shows more than half of Americans will likely pray before casting their votes. 2 years ago, North Carolina’s was Kaimon Rucker battled anxiety, depression, and injury. Today, the Tar Heels linebacker is a potential NFL first round draft pick.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are calling out Kamala Harris for “escalating” threats against former President Donald Trump.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:24 (LSB)
This is written to Christians, that is, those who were dead in their trespasses and sins in which they formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them they too all formerly lived in the lusts of their flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest….
But God, being rich in mercy because of his great love with which he loved them, even when they were dead in their transgressions, made them alive together with Christ (by grace they have been saved), and raised them up with him, and seated them with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus so that in the ages to come he might show in the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness toward them in Christ Jesus. For by grace they have been saved through faith; and not of themselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For they are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that they would walk in them. View article →
Though the polls are tight less than two weeks before the election, a growing number of Democrats believe Vice President Kamala Harris “will lose,” per a report.
“What’s striking is how our private conversations with Democrats inside and outside her campaign reveal broad concern that little she does, says — or tries — seems to move the needle,” Axios reported.
The report added, “Our reporting simply reflects scores of conversations with people close to Harris and intimately involved in swing-state races, including officials inside her campaign and top Biden administration officials.”
The outlet also wrote, “Top Democrats are already starting to point fingers at who’d be more responsible for a Harris loss — President Biden for dragging his feet, or Harris herself.”
Top Democrats talked to the outlet in private. One Democratic official texted, “Going down?”
“Democrats fear she has made too many different cases against Trump, and still hasn’t fully revealed herself to voters, who crave to know more,” Axios reported.
A longtime Democratic strategist said, “She is who she is. Let’s hope it’s enough.”
As Axios wrote:
“A common gripe among high-level Dems is that Harris does a nice job explaining why people shouldn’t vote for Trump — but struggles to crisply explain why they should vote for her. In other words, she’s a strong prosecutor — but struggles as a public defender.”
In contract, per the outlet, “Top Republicans, in private conversations, seem shockingly confident, given the consistent 50-50 polls. They talk in granular detail about White House jobs, and discuss policy playbooks for ’25.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an attempt to connect with millennial voters, Vice President Kamala Harris held a press conference in which she compared Donald Trump to the Dark Lord Voldemort.
Though Harris had previously carried on the Democratic tradition of comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler, her campaign staff advised her to choose a historical figure who would be more recognizable to younger voters.
“An aid to former President Trump has said he once heard Trump say ‘I wish I had some of those Death Eaters, the ones Voldemort had in Harry Potter.’ Can you believe that?” Harris alleged during the two-minute press conference. “He went on to say — and I quote — ‘I really like the way those Death Eaters got those little tattoos on their arms and could summon Voldemort whenever they wanted. I want to be like Voldemort. I like that guy. Very powerful.’ Those were the actual words he said.”
Harris delivered her remarks in a two-and-a-half-minute scripted speech, comparing Trump to Voldemort and saying the former president had also expressed a desire to hunt Mudbloods and destroy the Chosen One.
“Donald Trump said he’d be The Dark Lord on day one,” Harris asserted. “He wasn’t joking. We cannot allow a man who admires the dark evolution of Tom Riddle. This is a threat to democracy, occlumency, Defense Against the Dark Arts, and divination. We cannot allow this man to be president. When he tells you he wants to become He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named… believe him.”
At publishing time, Harris had also compared Trump to Sauron in an effort to appeal to loners and Dungeons & Dragons enthusiasts.
BIG NEWS: We made a movie, and you can watch the trailer NOW:
NEW YORK, NY — In what political experts said could be the final nail in the coffin for the former president’s bid to return to the White House, a former Blockbuster Video employee came forward to accuse Donald Trump of failing to return a rented VHS copy of Baby Geniuses in 1999.
The incident allegedly stemmed from a visit Trump made to a Blockbuster location in lower Manhattan years ago in search of the classic film featuring babies with computer-animated mouths. The former clerk of the store alleged Trump took the VHS tape and never returned it, disqualifying him from serving as president.
“Can anyone still vote for him with a clear conscience after hearing about this?” asked former Blockbuster employee Phil Jergens. “I saw it happen. I was there. It was 1999… such a great year for movies. I distinctly remember Donald Trump walking into the store on a Friday night and asking for Baby Geniuses. He said he had seen it five times already but couldn’t get enough of it. He rented it that night and he never returned it. I think all these MAGA voters need to ask themselves if this is the type of person they want leading their country.”
When asked for comment on the allegations, Trump was adamant that he had returned the tape on time. “Another witch hunt from the desperate Democrats,” he told reporters. “It’s sad. Very sad. I took the movie back to Blockbuster three days later. And I rewound it… you’ve got to rewind the tapes, folks. Heck of a movie. Baby Geniuses. They’re like little people with their mouths moving and everything. I still don’t know how they did it. Incredible technology.”
At publishing time, the Justice Department had officially indicted Trump on multiple counts of renting awful movies.
BIG NEWS: We made a movie, and you can watch the trailer NOW:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A leak from within the Democrat party recently alleged that frustrated Democrat leaders have gone as far as considering letting voters pick the presidential candidate next time.
According to the anonymous source, Democrats are so irritated about how poorly Kamala is performing that they might even decide to run a candidate who received more than zero primary ballots next election cycle.
“How did we even get here?” cried a distraught Chuck Schumer, cursing the incompetent bungling that stuck his party with an extremely “dumb and incompetent” presidential candidate. “Fine. FINE. I guess we can get a little bit of voter input on who we run next time. Just don’t get too used to it, voters!”
Democrats are reportedly so mad that they’re even considering proposing policies that don’t involve murdering unborn children or mutilating grade-schoolers. According to several Democrat sources, however, “those are just our last-resort ideas — we’re gonna try everything else first.”
At publishing time, the DNC had decided to let voters pick the presidential candidate in the next election cycle, but only if it matched the one they had hand-picked themselves.
BIG NEWS: We made a movie, and you can watch the trailer NOW:
A two-part documentary outlining the actions of popular pastor, author and speaker David Platt is available to view, and it is a real eye-opener. It’s called The Real David Platt: The Hijacking of McLean Bible Church For anyone who remembers Platt’s book Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American
Continue Reading The post appeared first on Berean Research .
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:24 (LSB) 
Truth2Freedom's Blog 